A city near you recently hosted a pickpocket convention and…

A city near you recently hosted a pickpocket convention and pickpockets from all over the world came to share their techniques and secrets. After the convention, the attendees all went out on the streets to practice what they had learned.
Alfred stole $5 from a homeless beggar to buy a joint. The homeless man was not able to eat that night.
Betty stole $100 from your child to pay for Betty’s expensive prescription. The child cried for thirty minutes.
Carl Stole $10,000 from a colleague of yours, an honest trust fund manager to help Carl’s widowed grandmother replace a dying furnace. The trust fund manager got fired for losing the money but got another job soon after.
Delilah stole $1,000,000 from a greedy billionaire to give to Delilah’s favorite charity (one that happens to be the same one that you support). The billionaire never noticed the money was missing.
Let’s pretend that all were caught and that you are responsible to determine which of the four will receive a penalty (three must be pardoned). Using moral arguments rather than legal arguments, who would you prosecute and why?
Let’s pretend that you are required to levy some punishment to three of the pick pockets, but one must be pardoned. Using moral arguments rather than legal arguments, which would you pardon and why?
Your paper needs to refer to arguments you have read in weeks one through seven and to the Scientific American article on “intent v. impact.”

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *